• 
• 

Published on August 24, 2007

I support former finance minister ML Pridiyathorn Devakula's suggestion that we should leave amending the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to the next government, which will be an elected one - especially in light of the very dire consequences he and others forecast if the National Legislative Assembly's changes go through. If an elected government decides, for good or ill, the decision will reflect the will of we the people, and we must be held accountable.

While waiting for the next government, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont should appoint a neutral body to thoroughly study the issue's pros and cons, so that we may decide based on reason - not emotions of the moment. The Thailand Development Research Institute, Chulalongkorn, or Thammasat's economic faculties could do such a study of such quality and impartiality that both proponents and opponents would want to quote it.

The study should start from the basics: Do we need an FBA at all? If so, why? For what industries? And for how long?

I suggest that we should promote competition, for if we don't, those who suffer are millions of consumers. Compare the Thai and Malaysian auto industries: the former open, the latter strongly protected - and as a result, we're the "Detroit of the East", while Malaysia still dares not let the winds of competition in. If we say that some sectors need time to adjust, then there must be carrots and sticks to ensure that they do become speedily competitive. During the protection period, it's we consumers who have to pay more money for less - as in Malaysia, and without incentives, sector participants will never become competitive. Look at our farmers, on List 1 from the start and still not competitive after a quarter-century and more.

Do a thorough, impartial study, and then let us decide on the facts. For once, let's have research-based policy.

Burin Kantabutra

BANGKOK

--------------------------

Scientific method wins out in 'worm' debate

Re: "Guides to Kingdom's wildlife sadly out of print", Letters, August 23.

Gerald Moore's recent letter cast doubt on my assessment that I found giant worms in soil in northernmost Thailand and instead says, "they are almost certainly caecilians: legless amphibians". I've seen legless amphibians and I've seen worms, and I stand by my assessment that they're worms. The two-foot long, light purple squigglers have no mouths, no hint of appendages, and are round and symmetrical from end to end. They are uniformly wrinkled like worms, and have no scales. Next time I find one, I'll try getting a photo of the fella next to a ruler, and do a closer exam (I'll post a sample to you if I have your address). Having said that, I don't mind being shown to be wrong in my assessment.

That's what separates science from metaphysics and the paranormal: science is based on tangible observations and encourages independent testing and differing interpretations of data. True scientific researchers shouldn't mind if their theories are proven wrong - and might even rejoice in the fact. In contrast, metaphysical and paranormal claims are inherently nebulous and therefore often impossible to prove or disprove by scientific method. Plus the proponent is often emotionally wrapped up in insisting his/her particular prediction or observation "be believed"...even going so far as to castigate non-believers as being stupid (or worse). But now we're straying very close to fundamental religionism and that's a whole big ball of wax on its own.

Ken Albertsen

CHIANG RAI

--------------------------

Cruelty to horses against teachings of the Buddha

Re: "Legislation needed to end mistreatment of horses", Letters, August 22.

Being from Texas, where horses are revered and severely protected, I was shocked, horrified and saddened by your comments. The mistreatment of any livestock in Texas would result in the owner being jailed and the livestock being taken away from them - forever!

This sort of treatment goes against the Buddhist principle of not harming other living creatures.

KJ Rosser

BANGKOK

--------------------------

Reader reveals the dangers of ice cream

Concerning the growth of international ice cream franchises in Thailand: when you note the effects of the ingredients in the ice cream sold by such franchises, you too will pity the children of Thailand.

The main ingredient is pasteurised milk. In the pasteurisation process, the good bacteria are destroyed, but the temperatures are not high enough to kill the harmful bacteria and 90 per cent of the enzyme phosphatase, required for calcium absorption, is destroyed. A new-born calf fed only pasteurised milk, dies in six weeks. It's a simply a non-food. Up to 40 per cent is refined sugar, various fructose syrups and other sweeteners. These raise blood triglycerides, one of the main causes of heart disease. This effect starts at infancy and has been documented in autopsies on three-year-olds.

Refined sugar causes a vitamin B deficiency, resulting in the jaw failing to grow to the normal full size, causing uneven teeth. Sugar causes cavities. It lowers the immune system within 20 minutes of ingestion. It leads to obesity and is associated with childhood and adult diabetes.

The rest of this sweet, tasty, well promoted concoction is made up of synthetic chemicals that add colour and flavour; emulsify, preserve and so on. These chemicals may be approved as safe in foods, but are foreign to the human body.

Some chemicals, such as the sweetener aspartame, have been approved by the FDA due to commercial pressure. This sad truth means that we cannot trust any of these chemical ingredients as truly safe. Aspartame or its sister flavour enhancer, monosodium glutamate, may or may not be included, but they are often appear under other names, to avoid notice. The new sweetener sucrolose has an added chlorine atom and is showing numerous side effects. Health-giving sweeteners such as stevia and honey are not used in commercial ice creams.

If a child of a well-informed parent insists on eating commercial ice cream, that parent should supplement with a B vitamin complex. Unfortunately, the FDA is forever trying to restrict vitamin imports, so we know their interest lies not in our health, but that of industry.

The population must be educated for the sake of their children's future health.

Thomas Turk

BANGKOK

--------------------------

Legal ambiguities make resort properties risky

Recently I had a conversation with a group of well-heeled resort property sales agents, who were celebrating their good fortune at a local lounge in Bangkok after a sales meeting.

Each member of the group represented new properties in Phuket, Koh Samui and other southern resort locations. They had been drinking a bit and talked freely when I asked about provisions of the Foreign Business Act, legislation to close loopholes, nominees and questionable land titles in resort property areas.

They told me that they have no idea as to the legality of their resort property sales to foreigners but as long as the Europeans keep paying for the properties they will keep selling them. I am no way implying that all sales agents conduct business in this manner, however everyone should be mindful of the old adage, "buyer beware".

David Barkdull

BANGKOK